Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 816111 + pending
Bug #816111 [console-setup] Larger font variants for HiDPI displays
Bug #1069791 [console-setup] console-setup: Build larger console fonts for
HiDPI/accessibility with future 6.9 kernels
Added tag(s) pending.
Added tag(s)
Processing control commands:
> forcemerge -1 816111
Bug #1069791 [console-setup] console-setup: Build larger console fonts for
HiDPI/accessibility with future 6.9 kernels
Bug #816111 [console-setup] Larger font variants for HiDPI displays
Bug #816111 [console-setup] Larger font variants for
Processing control commands:
> forcemerge -1 816111
Bug #1069791 [console-setup] console-setup: Build larger console fonts for
HiDPI/accessibility with future 6.9 kernels
Bug #1069791 [console-setup] console-setup: Build larger console fonts for
HiDPI/accessibility with future 6.9 kernels
Control: forcemerge -1 816111
Hello,
T. Joseph Carter, le mer. 24 avril 2024 13:25:22 -0700, a ecrit:
> Linux kernel 6.9+ will support larger font sizes for HiDPI screens. This
> is probably aimed at "more than 4k" monitors, but for accessibility
> reasons it would be really useful to have
Cyril Brulebois (2024-04-26):
> Anyway, I wanted to see if suggesting (I wouldn't go as far as requesting
> because I'm really not sure this would be the right course of action, more
> details below) a new binNMU of coreutils within testing would be
> sufficient to make trixie debootstrap-able
Hi,
I'm not sure how we reached this situation but there are a bunch of
packages in trixie that are not in a suitable state. To reproduce, a
simple `debootstrap trixie /tmp/trixie` on amd64 is sufficient.
Note: I've limited my exploration to amd64, which kept me busy already…
An obvious first
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
I wasn't sure it required a bug report since it's not really a bug but
maybe more of a feature request ?
Here is the bug report link:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1069897
Thanks again
Package: netcfg
Version: 1.187
As explained in this thread:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2024/04/msg00061.html , netcfg
doesn't read the search domain property sent by dhcp to make it
available to udhcpc and fill /etc/resolv.conf + lease file properly.
This setup doesn't work in an
Hi Frédéric,
Frédéric Guyot (2024-04-26):
> That's great, thank you for your fast response/fix.
> Just need to update netcfg now. Should I create a new post on the mailing
> list ?
The “request something on a list and that works out” is more of an
exception than the rule. To ensure proper
That's great, thank you for your fast response/fix.
Just need to update netcfg now. Should I create a new post on the mailing
list ?
Hi Lukas,
Lukas Märdian (2024-04-25):
> Turns out d-i was unable to finish the installation, due to
> installability issues of packages in the target system, especially
> systemd-sysv vs libssl3 in this case. The archive is still very much
> in flux and this is probably also why we still see d-i
Marco d'Itri (2024-04-26):
> On Apr 26, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>
> > So, should I disable module utils in busybox-udeb now?
> I think so.
I haven't gotten any requests / seen any reasons to keep it; so, yes,
please feel free to remove it whenever is convenient for you.
> > Is kmod udeb ready
26.04.2024 13:24, Frédéric Guyot wrote:
After looking at this a bit more closely , it seems that netcfg is calling
udhcpc with limited set options. see here:
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/netcfg/-/blob/master/dhcp.c#L38
After looking at this a bit more closely , it seems that netcfg is calling
udhcpc with limited set options. see here:
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/netcfg/-/blob/master/dhcp.c#L38
We would just need to add "search" to this list of options and update the
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 1069864 + pending
Bug #1069864 [busybox] busybox: Please enable "install" applet
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1069864:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 1060134 + pending
Bug #1060134 [kmod-udeb,busybox-udeb] kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who
ships depmod
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1060134:
Ok,
I'm removing whole modutils from busybox udeb (besides depmod, this is
lsmod, insmod, rmmod, and modprobe). All these are provided by
kmod-udeb as far as I can see (as symlinks to kod).
--
GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to rsa4096) since 2024-04-24.
New key: rsa4096/61AD3D98ECDF2C8E
On Apr 26, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> So, should I disable module utils in busybox-udeb now?
I think so.
> Is kmod udeb ready and used in d-i already, or does it need some
> prep first?
AFAIK it works.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
During the installation process, debian installer runs udhcpc to get the
dhcp lease and populate the resolv.conf file.
The /etc/udhcpc/default.script that runs at the end of an udhcpc call does
the following to populate the search domain in /etc/resolv.conf:
echo search $domain >> $cfg
This
09.04.2024 16:48, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Marco d'Itri (2024-04-09):
Yes. Nowadays kmod has many more features related to compressed modules
and verification of signatures.
Can we agree that kmod should provide these programs for d-i?
Or can the d-i maintainers just tell us what they want?
I
Hello Vagrant, hello Karsten,
I would like to keep the difference between the Debian and the Ubuntu
flash-kernel database small. A few merge requests for RISC-V boards have
piled up. Could you, please, have a look.
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/flash-kernel/-/merge_requests
Best
21 matches
Mail list logo
